Re: [asa] Re: various questions

From: Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Date: Sun Jun 03 2007 - 22:26:29 EDT

"The dear bish needs some training in science and the beauty of the natural world."

What?

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Michael Roberts
  To: Jack ; David Buller ; ASA Discussion Group
  Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 5:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Re: various questions

  I have looked at lots of commentaries on this passage and many before c 1900 argued that ktisis referred only to humans. William Buckland d1857 a Dean of Westminster Abbey and previously prof of geology at Oxford and a leading geologist argued the same.

  Today most commentators favour creation rather than humanity.

  I think the silliest interpretation of Romans 8 19 must be Tom Wright
  cited by D operdeck earlier

  Later, when discussing the new creation, Wright says "Death -- the corruption and decay of the good creation and of humans who bear God's image - is the ultimate blasphemy, the great intruder, the final satanic weapon, and it will itself be defeated. . . . the truly remarkable thing Paul is talking about here is an incorruptible, unkillable physical world. New creation is what matters, a new kind of world with a new kind of physicality, which will not need to decay and die, which will not be subject to seasons and the apparently (to us) endless sequence of deaths and births within the natural order. . . . Creation, writes Paul, has been subjected to futility (Romans 8:20). Don't we know it: the tree reaches its full fruitfulness and then becomes bleak and bare. Summer reaches its height and at once the days start to shorten. Human lives, full of promise and beauty, laughter and love, are cut short by illness and death. Creation bears witness to God's power and glory (Romans 1:19-20) but also to the present state of futility to which it has been enslaved."

  Frankly this is risible. The Fall in New England is futility as are snowfalls and the beauty of spring!!!!!. I would suggest that the good bishop walks along the banks of the River Wear in Durham below his cathedral (from which I removed lots of pigeon s*** from the roofs many years ago) and note the beauty of the changing seasons. Or else he could drive west from his ginormous palace into the Durham moors and note the wonder of the changing seasons. Snow in winter, bluebells in spring (now fading) purple heather in late summer and then the subdued reds of autumn (not fall). Yesterday I was cycling just south of there in the Yorkshire Dales and pedalled past the highest pub in England - Tan Hill at nearly 1800ft (started at 600ft ) It was the beauty of early summer in our British hills and not futile! As I was cycling along I was dive-bombed by lapwings protecting their nest. (For the benefit of Steve Krogh I did 46 miles in 5 hours and 40 minutes and touched 39mph descending one hill)

  The dear bish needs some training in science and the beauty of the natural world.

  Michael

   ----- Original Message -----
    From: Jack
    To: David Buller ; ASA Discussion Group
    Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 5:18 AM
    Subject: Re: [asa] Re: various questions

    Just a brief reply on Romans 8.

    The word of interest in the greek word "ktisis"

    This can be translated as creation, or creature. In fact the following is the King James translation:

    17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

    In my opinion this passage does not refer to all of creation, but is referring to people. I have heard different interpretations of this, Gentiles, Old Testament saints, all of mankind, but I do not think that Romans 8 indicates that the entire creation is in need of redemption, just as all of creation was not cursed by sin in Genesis 3. Only man is in need of redemption, sin came from a man, and salvation came from a man.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David Buller
      To: ASA Discussion Group
      Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:52 PM
      Subject: [asa] Re: various questions

      Oh, and by the way. I'd also be interested in hearing your position (TE, OEC, ID, YEC) and how (in a nutshell) you interpret Genesis. Thanks!

      David Buller

       
      On 6/1/07, David Buller <bullerscience@gmail.com> wrote:
        My Dad (who is also interested in age of the earth/evolution questions) recently asked the opinion of a friend of his (by email) regarding the age of the earth. I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on some of the objections to an old earth that were brought up by the friend.

        1. "Romans 8:19-23 talks about how the whole creation was affected by sin and that through sin the creation was subjected to futility (v. 20), corruption, and decay (v. 21) all things that led to death. So, I think there is fairly clear Biblical warrant to say that the whole creation suffered from Adam's sin and that before that sin there would have been no futility, corruption, decay, or death."

        2. "This also comes from Romans 5:12ff. The issue here is that if Adam evolved, then the human race did not just descend from Adam but from the entire population of pre-Adamic, pre-human beings. There would have been nothing to stop the intermarriage of Adam's descendants with the descendants of other, non-human beings; or for other humans to evolve apart from Adam. So, you would have humans inheriting a sin nature and dying who were not exclusive descendants from Adam. Theologically, Romans 5 does not make sense if Adam evolved. I think these first two issues pretty much rule out biological macroevolution."

        In the Tyndale Old Testament commentary on Genesis, Kidner has some interesting perspectives on this, and I agree with him (an evolutionary creationist). I'd still like to hear what some of you think and share it with my Dad.

        Thanks,
        David Buller

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 3 22:26:51 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 03 2007 - 22:26:51 EDT